In a significant development, the Supreme Court has declined anticipatory bail to Aditya Kumar, a former Superintendent of Police and IPS officer. Kumar is accused of orchestrating an elaborate scheme involving a conman posing as the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court to manipulate an ongoing corruption investigation against him.
A bench comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih firmly denied bail, emphasizing the gravity of the alleged offences. The charges against Kumar involve a conspiracy with his co-accused to thwart disciplinary proceedings and sway decisions in his favor.
The accusations detail the creation of a WhatsApp account, allegedly with Kumar’s knowledge, using a picture of the then Chief Justice of the Patna High Court, who currently serves as a Supreme Court judge. Subsequently, calls and messages were made from this account to the Director General of Police, Bihar, with the aim of influencing decisions in Kumar’s favor.
Having been denied pre-arrest bail by the Patna High Court earlier, Kumar now faces charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act. The Supreme Court, acknowledging the severity of the alleged offences, rejected his plea for anticipatory bail.
The Apex Court not only dismissed the bail plea but also directed the Registrar General of the Patna High Court to provide details of actions taken so far in a sealed cover. Furthermore, the investigating agency was instructed to submit the entire up-to-date Case Diary in a sealed cover.
The Court, drawing attention to the potential impact on judicial integrity and public trust, stated, “This Court will certainly not shut its eyes to the materials unearthed, since it relates not only to maintaining purity in judicial proceedings but upholding public faith in the system at large.”
Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, representing Kumar, argued for cooperation and highlighted the imminent submission of a Charge Sheet. However, the Apex Court, considering the gravity of the allegations and perceiving apparent non-cooperation, stood firm in denying anticipatory bail.
Referencing previous legal precedents, the Court underscored that custodial interrogation not being required is not sufficient grounds for granting anticipatory bail. Citing cases such as Sumitha Pradeep v Arun Kumar CK and Dharamraj v State of Haryana, the Court emphasized the exercise of judicial discretion in matters of anticipatory bail.
The Patna High Court, while refusing pre-arrest bail, had expressed concern about corruption’s potential threat, especially when involving individuals in uniform entrusted with curbing such activities.
The case, identified as ADITYA KUMAR V. STATE OF BIHAR, is currently a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4496/2023.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab 
